On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Lior Gradstein wrote:
>
> I find it really disturbing for someone that comes for the first time
> and *thinks* that's it's possible (especially when it was possible in
> 1.0, and you'll get a lot of references on the web on 'tips' and
> similar usage) to access the
I find it really disturbing for someone that comes for the first time
and *thinks* that's it's possible (especially when it was possible in
1.0, and you'll get a lot of references on the web on 'tips' and
similar usage) to access the filenames in a pre_save signal.
The problem is that *if* you do
Hi,
On 13 Mai, 00:42, Yuri Baburov wrote:
> Also on OS X you can set if filename is case-sensitive on per-volume
> basis, when formatting, and usually it's case-insensitive. windows is
> always case insensitive, linux is usually case-sensitive.
I'm not talking about case sensitivity here but uni
> On 11 Mai, 15:03, Marty Alchin wrote:
>> If you're using the filename to store it somewhere else, typically for
>> denormalization, it'd be better to do that post-save, since then you
>> know the record actually got saved in the database. Otherwise, you
>> might be trying to access the content
Hi,
On 11 Mai, 15:03, Marty Alchin wrote:
> If you're using the filename to store it somewhere else, typically for
> denormalization, it'd be better to do that post-save, since then you
> know the record actually got saved in the database. Otherwise, you
> might be trying to access the content o
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
> All bugs are fixed now except for #10788. Now the problem with
> closing that one is that this one requires a design descision. I
> updated the ticket accordingly for jacob or anyone else to decide on
> it. My personal opinion is that I
Hi,
All bugs are fixed now except for #10788. Now the problem with
closing that one is that this one requires a design descision. I
updated the ticket accordingly for jacob or anyone else to decide on
it. My personal opinion is that I consider it bad design for the
application to depend on the
On May 7, 10:18 pm, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
> Heyho,
>
> On May 7, 10:01 pm, Marty Alchin wrote:> It's not
> explicitly related to the MRO and method stuff you and Alex
> > have been working on, but it's definitely related to the r9766
> > discussion, since it's caused by the delayed saving. I ha
Heyho,
On May 7, 10:01 pm, Marty Alchin wrote:
> It's not explicitly related to the MRO and method stuff you and Alex
> have been working on, but it's definitely related to the r9766
> discussion, since it's caused by the delayed saving. I have a clear
> understanding of the problem, but I don't
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
> On May 7, 5:37 pm, Karen Tracey wrote:
>> #10249: can't create consistent MRO (method resolution order) when assigning
>> a File to a FileField.
> This is fixed.
I was reading over the patch Alex mentioned in IRC (yay for
DjangoBot's logge
Hi,
On May 7, 5:37 pm, Karen Tracey wrote:
> #10249: can't create consistent MRO (method resolution order) when assigning
> a File to a FileField.
This is fixed.
> #10300: custom storage backend can't get length of content to save.
This *should* be fixed. I can't test it, no access to S3.
> #
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
> I'm working with Alex on that right now here in Prague. We have some
> branches on github related to that. Basically the idea is to start
> with getting rid of some of the over engineering in the abstract base
> classes and make sure the
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> I noticed the question of what to do about the r9766-related issues came up
> in the 1.1 thread so figured, in case it's helpful, I'll lay out my
> understanding of what/where these are.
You've been doing some grea
Hi,
On May 7, 5:37 pm, Karen Tracey wrote:
> So far as I know there 4 open ticks remaining related to r9766. Three are
> regressions so I believe something really needs to be done about them before
> 1.1; one I think is just a bug in the new function. Personally I'd rather
> not revert the new
I noticed the question of what to do about the r9766-related issues came up
in the 1.1 thread so figured, in case it's helpful, I'll lay out my
understanding of what/where these are.
So far as I know there 4 open ticks remaining related to r9766. Three are
regressions so I believe
15 matches
Mail list logo
